Why Liberal Rage over Third Party Voters is Misplaced

Written by Ella Kulas

This article was originally written Fall 2024

The election is over, but evidence of its occurrence still permeates our awareness with red and blue signs littering yards, either left up in celebration, or in protest and an unwillingness to accept defeat. With the results of the election confirmed several weeks ago, in their grief, many Democrats have moved from “denial” to “anger.” While this combative energy is generally reserved for the opposition, the Democratic base has begun to turn its pitchforks in another direction; the left.

In 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hilary Clinton in the presidential election, many Democratic voters who were staunchly anti-Trump blamed those who had voted third-party for Clinton’s loss. In a two-party system, they argued, a vote for a third-party candidate was essentially a vote for Trump. The majority of these third-party votes went to either Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party or Jill Stein of the Green Party, and were labeled as “protest votes” from voters dissatisfied with the two options for president. In Michigan, Trump won the key swing state’s electoral votes by less than 11,000 votes. Jill Stein garnered 51,000 in the state that year. Democratic voters reamed those from their side of the political spectrum, specifically those who were further left, for voting for someone who clearly was not going to win.

This sentiment has experienced a resurgence following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election. Prior to the election, a significant segment of the left expressed its abhorrence at the Biden Administration’s support of Israel in its genocide against Gaza. After months of protests, boycotts, and pleading with the administration to take action to stop the killing, some voters on the left simply could not reconcile voting for someone who had not only been a part of carrying out that genocide, but also someone who had pledged its continuation. This is especially true for Palestinian American voters, many of whom have families that are either under threat in Gaza, or have already been killed by Israel. Furthermore, the Harris campaign, despite attempts by Palestinian Americans and members of the Uncommitted Movement, neglected to take actions that would have shown even a marginal commitment to stopping the violence or even to Palestinian representation at the DNC, instead of empty promises of a “tireless effort in working towards a ceasefire.” While some pro-Palestinian voters voted with Harris due to the fear of a Trump presidency, some voted with Jill Stein, or chose not to vote for a presidential candidate.

Some Democrats have begun to express their dissatisfaction with these actions through videos posted online, stating “I hope Jill Stein voters are happy with themselves” or wishing harm on third party supporters during a Trump presidency. Furthermore, some less staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause are bragging about their abandonment of boycotts, such as those of McDonalds and Starbucks, as a way to get back at Palestinians or those who support them. This rhetoric is flawed for several reasons. First of all, even if all of the votes for Jill Stein had been for Harris, she still would not have had sufficient votes to be elected president. Secondly, withdrawing support for a group of people who are facing genocide over the results of an election that they had no way to participate in is detestable. Support for people who are the victims of a genocide should not be contingent on whether or not one’s preferred candidate in an election wins, especially since that candidate is the one actively funding and fueling the genocide.

In reality, although Palestine was an important issue in this election cycle, it was not the reason that Harris lost the election. The Democratic Party’s first critical error was its catering to moderate Republican voters. The Harris Campaign released several advertisements and made policy platform changes in an attempt to win over what some campaign strategists have deemed the “reasonable Republicans,” or rather, those who are Republicans but cannot support Donald Trump. While this strategy seems sound at face value, it was entirely unsuccessful. In key swing states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Harris did not collect any significant margin more of moderate voters than Biden did, in fact it was the opposite. There was a palpable shift right in these states, with many more voters turning out to vote for Trump.

Harris’s second issue was that she ran an opposition campaign. Instead of focusing on getting her own party to turn out excited to vote for her, she ran on the idea that Trump would be worse. The Whig Party of the early 19th century is a prime example of the flaws in this strategy. Created as an opposition to Andrew Jackson, who the majority of the country hated, the Whig Party was largely unsuccessful at ousting Jackson. He won reelection against the Whig Party leader, Henry Clay, in 1832 by a margin of 219 electoral votes to just 49. His vice president, Martin van Buren defeated Clay as well in 1840, by a margin of 170-73. Harris’s campaign failed to learn from this history, and like Clay, she ran as an alternative to another candidate, rather than someone her party would be excited to vote for.

These two factors led to a decrease in voter turnout on the left, especially among young people. Harris garnered only 54%  of votes from people under 30, compared to 60% for Biden in 2020. The margins were even more pronounced in vital swing states, also known as the “Blue Wall” of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Harris lost all three states, whereas Biden won them by significant margins in 2020. By cutting key Democratic ideals from the party platform, like the abolishment of the death penalty, or opposition to fracking, as well as comments about “following the law” when it comes to transgender healthcare and being tough on “border security,” Harris compromised on long standing values important to her party in an attempt to gain the support of people who ended up voting for Trump anyway. The flaws in Harris’s strategy are apparent in the sweeping victories of progressive referenda and Congress members in counties that voted for Trump in the presidential election. For example, in Michigan’s 12th district, Rashida Tlaib, one of the most progressive representatives in the House, won her reelection bid with almost 70%  of the vote, but the district voted for Trump, proving Harris’s loss was not a result of progressive policies, but rather the opposite.

The problem with many liberal’s conclusions about the election is that they’re blaming the voters, instead of the candidates. The point of a representative democracy is that our representatives work for us. They have to earn our vote and carry out our wishes for “the people” to truly control the government. If the will of the people is not enough to change policy, then is it truly a democracy? Nearly 60% of people disapprove of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but abortion rights continue to be infringed upon. 61% of Americans support an arms embargo to Israel, but the Senate struck down a measure that would limit arms sales to Israel. Instead of playing into party loyalties as if politics was a sports rivalry, American voters need to organize to force their politicians into enacting their wishes, or find ways to create change outside of the system by organizing their communities and through mutual aid. If politicians will not look to save us, we must save ourselves.

Photograph by Tasos Katopodis